I really don't know have any clue whether the electorate would aprove Obama helping Israel or not. The polls don't impress me with such dire decisions.

I don't know if Americans would really want to get involved militarily for Jews. Or how many? Certainly some would not.

It doesn't sound like Israeli military can reliably do much damage to the dug in multiple sites. According to the Economist and others (posted on board) even the US military's ability is far from guaranteed. At least without:

1) ground operations2) small nulcear devices

It really does sound like Bibi has made the decision to go ahead. What Obama will do is a mystery.

In reading the opinion of the 60 minutes interview with the Mossad chief and Leslie Stahl along with everything else we have read I conclude that Israel has marginal ability at best to stop Iran from going nuclear. Indeed, the odds of success (without the US) are so low many Israelis would not do it alone. Too scared and understandably so.

I still think Israel has no choice but to try. The question is what will the US do?

What should they do?

There are many answers and many opinions.

Bottom line Iran will almost certainly have a nuclear bomb capability.

Military means was in retrospect and clearly is the only way to stop them.

IMHO , FWIW,Iran will have nuclear weapons will dictate to the Jews to leave Israel or else and the situation will be 100 times more dangerous than now.

Everything points to this. Despite years of talking about talkng nothing else has changed.

Iran has succeeded in digging in, and correctly judged the US to not be willing to do go the distance.

CCP, nice job following this. It will come down to what Netanyahu can and will do without advance American backing and your questions will dictate much of the aftermath.

Cynical but my take on the White House position is that they are still polling focus groups to measure whether or not Iran going fully nuclear will be considered by historians and the public in general to be George Bush's fault.

CCP, nice job following this. It will come down to what Netanyahu can and will do without advance American backing and your questions will dictate much of the aftermath.

Cynical but my take on the White House position is that they are still polling focus groups to measure whether or not Iran going fully nuclear will be considered by historians and the public in general to be George Bush's fault.

I think Obama has no problem with Iran nuking Israel out of existance. He'll say all the right things afterwards and pretend to show sympathy to the survivors, but he'll be slapping high fives with Rev. Wright and Rasheed Khalili in private.

Personally I didn't like Obama's advice to calm down the rhetoric. I don't recall ever seeing Bibi appear panicked, scared or irrational.I notice MSNBC and CNN (though the latter was a far more balanced panel) had on guests implying that the IRan thing is diverting attention from the big issue at hand in the middle east which is the Israel Palestinian dispute without an end. They had guests who made it clear that the entire problem are the Jewish settlements and if it weren't for the Jews settling on WEst Bank there would be peace. Essentially the fault of the Jews. Chris Hays sounded suspiciously putting forth this veiw which indeed is the view of the present WH occupant. It is in my view no coicidence MSNBC is pushing this now. It is direct propaganda from the WH or its minions.

All I can say to the WH is just keep it up. You will lose many Jewish votes. If Jews are somewhat paranoid and suspicious and untrusting it is for good reason. On Obama's political gamesmanship:

It could also be that he knows the difference between an ally and enemy but doesn't know what to do with that information.

If I were commander in chief, besides intelligence briefings I would have psychological experts on whatever is wrong with Ahmedinejad advising me as well. Correctly predicting and preparing for the enemy's next move is crucial, but difficult to do with raving maniacs.

Allowing Iran to go nuclear is unthinkable. Blowing up one location to set them back a year while confirming the view of the rest of the world that it is the "Zionists and the American Imperialists" (stealing a phrase from Saddam) who are the aggressors is not much gain.

Somewhere in the larger picture, nations like Russia and China shouldn't be able to play nice with us on other matters and smaller matters and then stab us in the back on crucial areas of non-proliferation and global security. If this is the biggest containable threat of this time, how about we treat it that way in our relationships with the other members of the security council.

The commitment to keep Iran non-nuclear needs to have more staying power than one first strike.

If I were commander in chief, besides intelligence briefings I would have psychological experts on whatever is wrong with Ahmedinejad advising me as well. Correctly predicting and preparing for the enemy's next move is crucial, but difficult to do with raving maniacs.

That's part of any intelligence analysis. They were using shrinks to figure out Hitler back in WWII.

Blowing up one location to set them back a year while confirming the view of the rest of the world that it is the "Zionists and the American Imperialists" (stealing a phrase from Saddam) who are the aggressors is not much gain.

There lies the problem, the world is only sympathetic to Israel or the US when we are victims. If we refuse to be victims, then our actions are condemned. If Tel Aviv is turned into radioactive glass, there will be lots of words but no actions of substance.

I get the impression that our military is really not in the mood for tangling with Iran. Going back into this thread will show (without running the risk of mere URLs no longer being available ) various pieces strongly make the point that Iran is a very tough nut to crack militarily.

Amongst the many variables (i.e. this is nowhere near an exhaustive analysis) not only are anti-aircraft defenses substantial (thank you Russia) but the facilities in question are deeply dug in, often in civilian population centers AND we have little idea whether we know of all locations. For some amount of time hard to determine, the straits of Hormuz will be disrupted; no one here should need a description of the economic consequences to the world economy-- and the strategic lessons that will be drawn by China, which depends heavily upon Iranian energy.

Indeed, we are unwilling to blacklist the Iranian central bank because of fears of economic disruption and the economic and the political consequences of that. I've yet to hear any of the Rep candidates call for even this step.

Yes clearly the US military is against an attack on Iran. The weight of the information we know publically is that they have already decided Iran will go nuclear, and they have already concluded of a strategy of "containment". Along with some missle "defense" systems they know Israel has ~100 nuclear devices and submarines capable of launching them they appear to think a policy similar to US Soviet detante/mutual assured destruction is the best way to go.

Netanyahu does not agree with this strategy and is not willing to risk Iran getting the nucs. The questions being thrown about from time to time like during the 60 minute interview with the Mossad chief, "are the Ayatolohs rational" comes into play here. In other words would Iranian leaders who weld the power be level headed enough not to use nuclear weapons knowing full well they would suffer a devasting attack that would kill millions. The Mossad guy says they are in his opinion "rational". Well I say they are rational enough to plan to build nuclear weapons under the guise of a peaceful program, dig the program deep under ground, only let the IEA see what they want them to see, and make clear publically intentions of wanting to get all Jews out of Israel. They have also been rational enough to have some talks over the years, hold off (reportedly) the program shortly after they saw Saddam being dragged out of a hole, and now again show some signs they want to talk ("to save face") just as it is becoming clear Israel will act alone - again - if aint obvious by now - to stall off any military attack so they can continue on the program they have paid extraordinarily dearly for in time, expense, with sanctions, with economic woes.

Folks they want bombs. Every indication tis they plan on making good with their threats. Amadinajad keeps making it clear that Iran only need light up a few nucs to kill or injure most Israelis. This is the same group (I think) that was willing to send 100 thousand children to near certain death across Iraqi mine fields.

So now we can either pray that containment would work aka Obama/US military or hope that what Netanyhu does works.

Strategies to deal with Iran sanctionsSrinath Raghavan Share · Comment · print · T+ Share India's good relations with the Middle East countries will advance its interests in the region.

When it comes to Iran, India means business. This was clear from New Delhi's decision to send a delegation comprising officials and businessmen to Tehran. The delegation is exploring the opportunities created by the latest US and EU sanctions on Iran. India's serious pursuit of its economic interest is a welcome turn in its foreign policy. But New Delhi needs to orchestrate its economic and geopolitical moves on the complicated chess-board of West Asia.

The US has imposed sanctions that will penalise financial institutions transacting with the Iranian central bank. In tandem, the EU has slapped an embargo on Iranian crude imports that will come fully into effect in July 2012. American allies in Asia — Japan, Taiwan and South Korea — are also reducing their imports of Iranian crude. In all, Iran could miss out on as much as 35 per cent of its total exports. This leaves China and India as the two largest buyers of Iranian crude. Iran currently accounts for more than 11 per cent of India's oil imports, amounting to $12 billion a year.

TRADE WITH IRAN Faced with such hard sanctions, it isn't surprising that Iran has agreed to a rupee payment mechanism for 45 per cent of its oil exports to India. This, of course, works rather well for us. It provides a major avenue for Indian exports. Iran is already the largest importer of rice from India, accounting for half of the 2.2 million tonnes exported by India last year. This is the time to surge ahead with exports in some other, higher-value sectors. We could also use this opportunity to upgrade the Chahbahar port and its transportation links with Afghanistan and some other Central Asian countries. Chahbahar was recently used by India to send 100,000 tonnes of wheat to Afghanistan. Investing further in its development will considerably increase India's economic footprint in these parts.

While surging ahead with the opportunities presented by the current situation, India needs to prepare for potential pitfalls in its ties with Iran. For a start, the agreement on the payment mechanism doesn't spell the end of the problems in importing oil from Iran. There is the major issue of insurance for tankers shipping Iranian oil to India. European firms insure more than 90 per cent of tanker fleets globally. Their refusal, following the imposition of sanctions, to cover shipments from Iran presents serious problems for India.

New Delhi is apparently considering extending the sovereign guarantee to Indian ships that fetch Iranian crude. This still leaves us with the issue of covering foreign tankers chartered by India. We may find some interim solution to this. But in the longer run, we need to enhance our own fleet, and foster the development of protection and indemnity insurance in India. The position, vis-à-vis Iran, points to a larger strategic imperative for India. Our energy security hinges on our ability to become a serious maritime power. And historically, there have been few maritime powers that aren't financial powerhouses as well.

GEOPOLITICAL CHALLENGES The more pressing challenges are geopolitical. As the US and its allies attempt to step up sanctions on Iran, there will be pressure on India to follow suit. So far, India has spoken out against these steps, and has rightly held that it isn't bound to comply with unilateral sanctions. New Delhi should be more forthcoming in pointing out that the sanctions are actually likely to be counterproductive. The heart of the problem is the ambiguity in Washington's approach to Iran.

On the one hand, the imposition of additional sanctions is aimed at forcing Iran to negotiate with the West and halt its nuclear enrichment activities. On the other, there is the unstated but evident hope that the sanctions might lead to regime change in Iran. In this context, Tehran has little incentive to comply with UN Security Council resolutions on its nuclear programme. What is more, having seen the fate of Muammar Gaddafi, who paid for abandoning his nuclear programme with the loss of his regime and life, the Iranian leadership will look for solid reassurances before engaging in serious negotiations.

Making these arguments, if only in private, is important, because India wouldn't like Iran to acquire nuclear weapons capability. The problem isn't that a nuclear Iran would present an existential danger to its Arab neighbours and Israel. The American nuclear umbrella and the Israeli nuclear arsenal are more than adequate to make sure that Iran doesn't even contemplate using nuclear weapons. Nor is it the case that a nuclear Iran will trigger a chain-reaction of nuclear proliferation in West Asia. The Arab countries have, after all, lived with the Israeli bomb for decades. The problem rather is that the acquisition of nuclear weapons might embolden Iran in using its proxies to advance its influence in the region. For the fear of escalation to the nuclear level would constrict the options available to Iran's rivals. The resulting instability will undermine India's interests in West Asia — and not least, the presence of 6 million Indian workers.

INDIA'S INTERESTS Further, a determined move by Tehran to acquire the bomb will catalyse the incipient rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia. This dynamic is currently playing out in third countries like Syria and Bahrain, where Iran and Saudi Arabia are supporting their respective clients. India has important interests in its relations with both Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is no coincidence that even as New Delhi is looking to expand its economic engagement with Tehran, the Indian defence minister went to Riyadh — the first visit of its kind. Similarly, India has interests at stake on both sides of the Iran-Israel divide. The challenge for New Delhi in all these sets of relationships is to avoid taking sides. The recent attack on the Israeli diplomat has led to exaggerated claims on the ‘war' in West Asia coming to India's doorstep, and the need for India to pick its partners.

On the contrary, India's good relations with all these countries provide it more options to advance its interests in the region. This is a game that New Delhi needs to play with patience and finesse.

Another release of "classified" military non information that expresses what any idiot can see.

OK Franks what is the alternative to military stirke that will stop Iran from going nuclear? The answer is nothing. The plan is obvious - containment and hope for the best.

I am sick and tired of the WH releasing only information that will help with its re election.

If we are not going to back Israel then just say so.

Stop the double talk, the "I have your back" crap. "No options are off the table" nonsense. And we know Iran will strike back in subtle ways at first and there is no end to this as long as we don't deal with it fully now.

It seems to me that military action should include their government that is causing all this not most of the Iranians (at least as is reported)

By Rick Newman | U.S.News & World Report LP – Wed, Mar 21, 2012 3:47 PM EDT........If gas prices are still close to $4 per gallon when Election Day rolls around, President Obama will face tough political odds. But Obama--or his successor--could end up with a far worse problem than that in the not-too-distant future.

Forecasting firm IHS Global Insight has run a detailed scenario on how a war with Iran would affect oil prices and the global economy, with disconcerting takeaways for anybody sensitive to oil and gas prices--including politicians. The forecast says that if a military campaign over Iran's nuclear program prompted Tehranto lay mines in an attempt to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, Brent crude prices could soar from current levels of about $125 per barrel to a peak of roughly $240. Gas prices would rise by the same magnitude--pushing them above $7 per gallon.

In the model, oil and gas prices probably wouldn't stay at those levels for long. Any major disruption of oil markets by Iran would likely bring a rapid and overwhelming response by the U.S. military, including attacks by ships and aircraft already stationed around the Persian Gulf. IHS predicts U.S. forces would probably be able to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil chokepoint, in four weeks or less. But it would still take months for oil prices to settle back down to normal levels, while consumers and businesses grappled with collateral damage to their finances.

Most economists estimate that the threat of confrontation with Iran has already pushed oil prices up by about $20 per barrel.. In the United States, gas prices have risen by nearly 55 cents per gallon so far this year to a national average of $3.92. In addition to hurting consumers, that impacts investors, speculators and business leaders, who are all intently focused on oil prices and where they might be heading.

In its scenario, IHS assumed that Iran will use mines, missiles and small-boat swarming tactics to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of the world's traded oil flows every day. That could come in response to a U.S. or Israeli preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, but Iran could also make such an aggressive move on its own. "Iran's leaders have done things that we expect rational leaders to avoid doing," Farid Abolfathi of IHS told clients in a recent presentation. "They might miscalculate or misjudge their chances of success."

Even though the model predicts U.S. forces could probably reopen the Strait fairly quickly, it might still take a while to completely defeat Iran. ines are notoriously tricky to clear and some could lurk undetected, threatening tankers for months. Iranian submarines and small attack boats could hide amidst a large fleet of civilian fishing vessels in dozens of villages and island harbors, mounting follow-on attacks on tankers and American ships.

The forecast also says that if oil were to rise to more than $200 a barrel, it could induce panicky consumer behavior, such as drivers topping off their gas tanks regularly out of fear that gasoline might run out. Lines at gas stations reminiscent of the 1970s might form. Pump prices would rise in line with oil prices, and stock markets could easily fall by 10 or 20 percent, possibly spurring a new recession.

IHS goes on to predict there would also be urgent efforts to relieve the supply crunch, such as a generous release of oil from emergency reserves in the U.S. and Europe. Saudi Arabia would be pressured to tap all the spare capacity it has, and export as much as possible via pipelines that run to the Red Sea. Many nations would institute rationing schemes and strict conservation measures.

Those actions, combined with the rollback of the Iranian military, would bring oil prices down to an average of about $160 per barrel for three months or so, then back to around $120, IHS believes. So the whole affair might rattle markets for six months or so, and perhaps end with something like a return to the status quo.

If it were to happen, the timing could upend American politics. A war with Iran in the fall, leading up to the elections, would intensify the financial pain soaring gas prices have on the typical American family, with gas costing them an extra $100 per month or more. But a surge of patriotism might offset that, electorally speaking, helping Obama more than it hurts him.

IHS assume that its scenario takes place at the beginning of 2013, which would saddle the U.S. president with one more tough and complex problem at the same time that momentous decisions about tax cuts (or hikes) need to be made, and big cuts in federal spending are due to kick in. Wriggling out of a recession under that blend of economic pressures would be an impressive Houdini act for whoever is president in 2013.

There's one other scenario, of course: Some kind of diplomatic resolution that avoids a military confrontation and pushes oil prices down instead of up. That would mean politics as usual, which is ugly enough. But the politicians, at least, would have one less thing to argue about.

Rick Newman is the author of Rebounders: How Winners Pivot From Setback to Success, to be published in May. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman

Interesting about recent leak to media about Israel using Azerbaijan as a base for a possible attack on Iran. Apparantly Iran has been trying to arrange terrorist acts in that country in apparant retaliation for Azerbaijani security arrests:

****Deterioration of relations in 2012In 2012, three men were detained by the Azerbaijan Ministry of National Security for planning to attack Israelis employed by a Jewish school in Baku. Security officials in Baku linked Iran to the planned terror operation. The men allegedly received smuggled arms and equipment from Iranian agents, possibly as retaliation to the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. Wafa Guluzade, a political commentator close to the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, warned Iran that "planning the murder of prominent foreign citizens in Azerbaijan by a band of terrorists, one of whom [Dadashov] resides in Iran, amounts to 'hostile activity' against our country."[40]

Irani-Azeri relations deteriorated further after the Azeri Communication Minister, Ali Abbasov accused Iran of carrying out cyber attacks against the country.[40]

On March 2012 Azerbaijan arrested 22 people on suspicion of plotting attacks on the U.S and Israeli embassies in Baku on behalf of neighboring Iran. The ministry said that the suspects were recruited from 1999 onwards and trained in the use of weapons and spy techniques at military camps in Iran to enable them to gather information on foreign embassies, organizations and companies in Azerbaijan and stage attacks.[41][42]***

Iran leadership has been quite clear about their intentions. Obviously they can see Obama is not on Israel's side in seriously stopping them from getting nuclear weapons just like anyone of us. Nothing new here:

*****02 April 2012 - 16H11

Iran vows to stick to nuclear 'path'

A picture released by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's official website shows him (right) listening to an expert during a tour of Tehran's research reactor centre on February 15. Iran declared on Monday it will not be swayed from its nuclear "path" by sanctions, a week before talks with world powers that are increasingly seen as a last chance for diplomacy in its showdown with the West.

A picture released by the Iranian president's official website shows a metal-encased rod with 20 percent enriched nuclear fuel as it is inserted into a reactor in Tehran on February 15. Iran declared on Monday it will not be swayed from its nuclear "path" by sanctions, a week before talks with world powers that are increasingly seen as a last chance for diplomacy in its showdown with the West.

Iranian Minister for Foreign Affairs Ali Akbar Salehi is seen prior to his speech at the opening day of the United Nation Human Rights Council annual session on February 27 in Geneva. Iran declared on Monday it will not be swayed from its nuclear "path" by sanctions, a week before talks with world powers that are increasingly seen as a last chance for diplomacy in its showdown with the West. AFP - Iran declared on Monday it will not be swayed from its nuclear "path" by sanctions, a week before talks with world powers that are increasingly seen as a last chance for diplomacy in its showdown with the West.

"The sanctions may have caused us small problems but we will continue our path," Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi vowed in an interview with the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

"We do not underestimate any enemy, no matter how tiny and lowly they are. The regime's officials -- the supreme leader, the president, the army, the (Revolutionary) Guards and Basij (militia) -- are completely vigilant. And the nation is prepared to defend the achievements of Islamic Iran," he said.

The defiant words came after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Saturday that the talks between Iran and the world powers would take place April 13 and 14 in Istanbul.

She and US President Barack Obama have both publicly said that the window for diplomacy in the standoff over Iran's nuclear programme is closing.

"Our policy is one of prevention, not containment," Clinton said in Saudi Arabia after talks with her Gulf Arab counterparts.

It is up to Iran to engage in the talks "with an effort to obtain concrete results," Clinton said.

Israel -- the sole if undeclared nuclear weapons state in the Middle East -- and the United States have threatened military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomacy and sanctions fail to curb the Islamic republic's nuclear ambitions.

The UN Security Council has imposed four sets of sanctions on Iran because of suspicions over its nuclear programme, which the United States and its allies believe includes a drive to develop atomic weapons capability.

The West has imposed its own unilateral economic sanctions on Iran.

But Iran's oil minister, Rostam Qasemi, told the Mehr news agency on Monday that the West's efforts to curb Iranian oil exports "have been a failure".

"We have seen off what they describe as 'rigorous sanctions' against the oil industry," he said.

Iran denies any military dimension to its nuclear activities.

Its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has called nuclear weapons a "sin". But he has also refused to bow to sanctions, and warned Iran would retaliate in kind if attacked.

Foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said in an interview with the Fars news agency that Iran considered the talk of war to be a "psychological" gambit "to affect the Iranian nation, to lower the support of the people for the system."

But, he said, "our readiness (to ward off any threat) is at its peak. We take any threat, even those with a low probability of happening, seriously.

"If any practical action, either surgical or long-lasting, is taken, we will respond decisively."

The talks between Iran and the P5+1 group -- the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany -- are seen as an opportunity to defuse the tense situation.

EU officials in Brussels said that, despite Clinton's affirmation, Istanbul had not yet been fully confirmed as the venue.

"The talks are scheduled to start late on the 13th and will be held primarily on the 14th," one EU diplomat told AFP on condition of anonymity.

They will "very likely" take place in Istanbul, but all parties had not yet reached complete agreement, the diplomat said.

A spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who represents the P5+1 in the negotiations, said only: "We will announce it (the venue) formally once we have full agreement."

The last round of talks between Iran and the P5+1 group was held in Istanbul in January 2011 and ended in failure. Geneva hosted the round before that in late 2010.

The United States is poised to bolster unilateral sanctions that are already making it harder for Iran to sell its vital oil exports. Countries that do not reduce Iranian oil imports risk being targeted by US sanctions.

But Salehi stressed to IRNA: "The West thinks that Iran is like many other countries who will yield under America's pressure. But they are mistaken."

He said Iran had resisted Western pressure ever since it became an Islamic republic following its 1979 revolution. And he said the United States would be forced to retreat from its positions if Iranian "national unity" was strengthened.***

"BRAZIL, the saying used to go, is the land of the future — and always will be. But when Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff, visits the White House next week, she will come as the leader of a country whose future has arrived.

With huge new offshore oil discoveries and foreign investment flooding in, Brazil’s economy, growing twice as fast as America’s, has surpassed Britain’s to become the world’s seventh largest. As a member of the Group of 20 and host of the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics, Brazil is an emerging global leader.

But there is one area where it has an opportunity to lead and has failed to: preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Brazil should take the bold step of voluntarily ending its uranium enrichment program and calling on other nations, including Iran, to follow its example."

President Obama signals Iran that US would endorse nuclear program if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei backs up claim that Islamic Republic won't purse atom bomb, US paper reports

Yitzhak Benhorin Published: 04.06.12, 19:37 / Israel News

WASHINGTON - US President Barack Obama has signaled Tehran that the Washington would accept an civilian nuclear program in Iran if Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can back up his recent claim that his nation “will never pursue nuclear weapons,” the Washington Post reported Friday.

According to the report, the verbal message was sent through Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who met with Khamenei last week. A few days prior to leaving for the trip, Erdogan held a two-hour meeting with Obama on the sidelines of the nuclear security summit in Seoul, in which they discussed what the Turkish leader would tell Khamenei about the nuclear issue.

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote that Obama advised Tehran, via Edrogan, that time is running out for a peaceful agreement. Obama didn’t specify whether Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium domestically. The issue evidently is to be discussed during the talks between the Islamic Republic and the West, which are slated start on April 13 at a venue yet to be decided.

Words into actionsEdrogan is said to have agreed with Obama that the primary challenge faced by the negotiators is turning Khamenei’s public rhetoric into a serious and verifiable commitment not to build a bomb.

Erdogan reportedly conveyed Obama’s message to Khamenei when he met the Iranian leader on Thursday. Erdogan also met President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other senior Iranian officials during his visit.

Western diplomats remain skeptic about the success of the diplomatic path, especially in light of the recent disagreement over the venue for the upcoming negotiations. According to the report, Istanbul was expected to host the talks, but the Iranians last weekend balked and suggested instead to meet in Iraq or China.

US officials consider this foot-dragging a sign that the Iranian leadership is still formulating its positions ahead of the talks.

Meanwhile, the US pressed on with sanctions that aim to deprive Tehran of revenue needed to develop its nuclear program.

For centuries, the dilemma facing Iran (and before it, Persia) has been guaranteeing national survival and autonomy in the face of stronger regional powers like Ottoman Turkey and the Russian Empire. Though always weaker than these larger empires, Iran survived for three reasons: geography, resources and diplomacy. Iran's size and mountainous terrain made military forays into the country difficult and dangerous. Iran also was able to field sufficient force to deter attacks while permitting occasional assertions of power. At the same time, Tehran engaged in clever diplomatic efforts, playing threatening powers off each other.

The intrusion of European imperial powers into the region compounded Iran's difficulties in the 19th century, along with the lodging of British power to Iran's west in Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula following the end of World War I. This coincided with a transformation of the global economy to an oil-based system. Then as now, the region was a major source of global oil. Where the British once had interests in the region, the emergence of oil as the foundation of industrial and military power made these interests urgent. Following World War II, the Americans and the Soviets became the outside powers with the ability and desire to influence the region, but Tehran's basic strategic reality persisted. Iran faced both regional and global threats that it had to deflect or align with. And because of oil, the global power could not lose interest while the regional powers did not have the option of losing interest.

Whether ruled by shah or ayatollah, Iran's strategy remained the same: deter by geography, protect with defensive forces, and engage in complex diplomatic maneuvers. But underneath this reality, another vision of Iran's role always lurked.

Iran as Regional Power

A vision of Iran -- a country with an essentially defensive posture -- as a regional power remained. The shah competed with Saudi Arabia over Oman and dreamed of nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad duels with Saudi Arabia over Bahrain, and also dreams of nuclear weapons. When we look beyond the rhetoric -- something we always should do when studying foreign policy, since the rhetoric is intended to intimidate, seduce and confuse foreign powers and the public -- we see substantial continuity in Iran's strategy since World War II. Iran dreams of achieving regional dominance by breaking free from its constraints and the threats posed by nearby powers.

Since World War II, Iran has had to deal with regional dangers like Iraq, with which it fought a brutal war lasting nearly a decade and costing Iran about 1 million casualties. It also has had to deal with the United States, whose power ultimately defined patterns in the region. So long as the United States had an overriding interest in the region, Iran had no choice but to define its policies in terms of the United States. For the shah, that meant submitting to the United States while subtly trying to control American actions. For the Islamic republic, it meant opposing the United States while trying to manipulate it into taking actions in the interests of Iran. Both acted within the traditions of Iranian strategic subtlety.

The Islamic republic proved more successful than the shah. It conducted a sophisticated disinformation campaign prior to the 2003 Iraq war to convince the United States that invading Iraq would be militarily easy and that Iraqis would welcome the Americans with open arms. This fed the existing U.S. desire to invade Iraq, becoming one factor among many that made the invasion seem doable. In a second phase, the Iranians helped many factions in Iraq resist the Americans, turning the occupation -- and plans for reconstructing Iraq according to American blueprints -- into a nightmare. In a third and final phase, Iran used its influence in Iraq to divide and paralyze the country after the Americans withdrew.

As a result of this maneuvering, Iran achieved two goals. First, the Americans disposed of Iran's archenemy, Saddam Hussein, turning Iraq into a strategic cripple. Second, Iran helped force the United States out of Iraq, creating a vacuum in Iraq and undermining U.S. credibility in the region -- and sapping any U.S. appetite for further military adventures in the Middle East. I want to emphasize that all of this was not an Iranian plot: Many other factors contributed to this sequence of events. At the same time, Iranian maneuvering was no minor factor in the process; Iran skillfully exploited events that it helped shape.

There was a defensive point to this. Iran had seen the United States invade the countries surrounding it, Iraq to its west and Afghanistan to its east. It viewed the United States as extremely powerful and unpredictable to the point of irrationality, though also able to be manipulated. Tehran therefore could not dismiss the possibility that the United States would choose war with Iran. Expelling the United States from Iraq, however, limited American military options in the region.

This strategy also had an offensive dimension. The U.S. withdrawal from Iraq positioned Iran to fill the vacuum. Critically, the geopolitics of the region had created an opening for Iran probably for the first time in centuries. First, the collapse of the Soviet Union released pressure from the north. Coming on top of the Ottoman collapse after World War I, Iran now no longer faced a regional power that could challenge it. Second, with the drawdown of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan, the global power had limited military options and even more limited political options for acting against Iran.

Iran's Opportunity

Iran now had the opportunity to consider emerging as a regional power rather than solely pursuing complex maneuvers to protect Iranian autonomy and the regime. The Iranians understood that the moods of global powers shifted unpredictably, the United States more than most. Therefore it knew that the more aggressive it became, the more the United States may militarily commit itself to containing Iran. At the same time, the United States might do so even without Iranian action. Accordingly, Iran searched for a strategy that might solidify its regional influence while not triggering U.S. retaliation.

Anyone studying the United States understands its concern with nuclear weapons. Throughout the Cold War it lived in the shadow of a Soviet first strike. The Bush administration used the possibility of an Iraqi nuclear program to rally domestic support for the invasion. When the Soviets and the Chinese attained nuclear weapons, the American response bordered on panic. The United States simultaneously became more cautious in its approach to those countries.

In looking at North Korea, the Iranians recognized a pattern they could use to their advantage. Regime survival in North Korea, a country of little consequence, was uncertain in the 1990s. When it undertook a nuclear program, however, the United States focused heavily on North Korea, simultaneously becoming more cautious in its approach to the North. Tremendous diplomatic activity and periodic aid was brought to bear to limit North Korea's program. From the North Korean point of view, actually acquiring deliverable nuclear weapons was not the point; North Korea was not a major power like China and Russia, and a miscalculation on Pyongyang's part could lead to more U.S. aggression. Rather, the process of developing nuclear weapons itself inflated North Korea's importance while inducing the United States to offer incentives or impose relatively ineffective economic sanctions (and thereby avoiding more dangerous military action). North Korea became a centerpiece of U.S. concern while the United States avoided actions that might destabilize North Korea and shake loose the weapons the North might have.

The North Koreans knew that having a deliverable weapon would prove dangerous, but that having a weapons program gave them leverage -- a lesson the Iranians learned well. From the Iranians' point of view, a nuclear program causes the United States simultaneously to take them more seriously and to increase its caution while dealing with them. At present, the United States leads a group of countries with varying degrees of enthusiasm for imposing sanctions that might cause some economic pain to Iran, but give the United States a pretext not to undertake the military action Iran really fears and that the United States does not want to take.

Israel, however, must take a different view of Iran's weapons program. While not a threat to the United States, the program may threaten Israel. The Israelis' problem is that they must trust their intelligence on the level of development of Iran's weapons. The United States can afford a miscalculation; Israel might not be able to afford it. This lack of certainty makes Israel unpredictable. From the Iranian point of view, however, an Israeli attack might be welcome.

Iran does not have nuclear weapons and may be following the North Korean strategy of never developing deliverable weapons. If they did, however, and the Israelis attacked and destroyed them, the Iranians would be as they were before acquiring nuclear weapons. But if the Israelis attacked and failed to destroy them, the Iranians would emerge stronger. The Iranians could retaliate by taking action in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States, which ultimately is the guarantor of the global maritime flow of oil, might engage Iran militarily. Or it might enter into negotiations with Iran to guarantee the flow. An Israeli attack, whether successful or unsuccessful, would set the stage for Iranian actions that would threaten the global economy, paint Israel as the villain, and result in the United States being forced by European and Asian powers to guarantee the flow of oil with diplomatic concessions rather than military action. An attack by Israel, successful or unsuccessful, would cost Iran little and create substantial opportunities. In my view, the Iranians want a program, not a weapon, but having the Israelis attack the program would suit Iran's interests quite nicely.

The nuclear option falls into the category of Iranian manipulation of regional and global powers, long a historical necessity for the Iranians. But another, and more significant event is under way in Syria.

Syria's Importance to Iran

As we have written, if the Syrian regime survives, this in part would be due to Iranian support. Isolated from the rest of the world, Syria would become dependent on Iran. If that were to happen, an Iranian sphere of influence would stretch from western Afghanistan to Beirut. This in turn would fundamentally shift the balance of power in the Middle East, fulfilling Iran's dream of becoming a dominant regional power in the Persian Gulf and beyond. This was the shah's and the ayatollah's dream. And this is why the United States is currently obsessing over Syria.

What would such a sphere of influence give the Iranians? Three things. First, it would force the global power, the United States, to abandon ideas of destroying Iran, as the breadth of its influence would produce dangerously unpredictable results. Second, it would legitimize the regime inside Iran and in the region beyond any legitimacy it currently has. Third, with proxies along Saudi Arabia's northern border in Iraq and Shia along the western coast of the Persian Gulf, Iran could force shifts in the financial distribution of revenues from oil. Faced with regime preservation, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states would have to be flexible on Iranian demands, to say the least. Diverting that money to Iran would strengthen it greatly.

Iran has applied its strategy under regimes of various ideologies. The shah, whom many considered psychologically unstable and megalomaniacal, pursued this strategy with restraint and care. The current regime, also considered ideologically and psychologically unstable, has been equally restrained in its actions. Rhetoric and ideology can mislead, and usually are intended to do just that.

This long-term strategy, pursued since the 16th century after Persia became Islamic, now sees a window of opportunity opening, engineered in some measure by Iran itself. Tehran's goal is to extend the American paralysis while it exploits the opportunities that the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq has created. Simultaneously, it wants to create a coherent sphere of influence that the United States will have to accommodate itself to in order to satisfy the demand of its coalition for a stable supply of oil and limited conflict in the region.

Iran is pursuing a two-pronged strategy toward this end. The first is to avoid any sudden moves, to allow processes to run their course. The second is to create a diversion through its nuclear program, causing the United States to replicate its North Korea policy in Iran. If its program causes an Israeli airstrike, Iran can turn that to its advantage as well. The Iranians understand that having nuclear weapons is dangerous but that having a weapons program is advantageous. But the key is not the nuclear program. That is merely a tool to divert attention from what is actually happening -- a shift in the balance of power in the Middle East.

George Friedman is chief executive officer of Stratfor, the world’s leading online publisher of geopolitical intelligence. This article has been republished from the Stratfor website.

Iran's oil sector wrestled on Monday with alleged cyberattacks that began at the Oil Ministry and have spread to other industries, Iranian officials and media said.

The apparent sabotage forced Iran's Oil Ministry to cut off Internet access to all employees, including refinery workers, to avoid further spread, a new blow to an industry that is already a target of sanctions intended to deprive Tehran of oil revenue.

Oil shipments haven't been affected, Iranian officials said on Monday, though personnel at the Kharg oil terminal, through which at least 80% of Iran's exports are shipped abroad, haven't been able to send or receive email since Sunday, an oil official at the terminal said.

"We are using telephone, fax, SMS," the official said.

An Iranian security official told ISNA that Iran wasn't familiar with the virus, which he said steals information and erases data. The attack on computers of the oil ministry was first identified in March, but its effects reached a critical force on Sunday, when information was erased from several computers in the Oil Ministry and servers were disrupted, ISNA said.

Iran's oil news agency, SHANA, was also disrupted by the virus, ISNA reported.

The ministry said on Monday that it had created an emergency committee to battle the virus. The committee is investigating to determine whether it originated abroad or inside Iran, said Hamdollah Mohamadnejad, the ministry's defense strategist, according to news media.

Iran's nuclear industry was hit by a virus in 2010 known as Stuxnet, which targeted centrifuges, in what was widely believed to be an act of foreign sabotage aimed at slowing Tehran's progress toward building a nuclear weapon—though Iran denies it has such a goal.

Iran recently resumed talks with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany, but Western governments have said they would continue to oppose Iran's nuclear program, which they suspect has military aims. Iran has said its nuclear program is only for peaceful uses.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has called the Internet a threat to national security and instructed security forces to train and form units to battle cyberattacks as well as the influence of social-media websites.

Iran announced in 2011 that it was working to launch the world's first "national Internet," a secure network that could effectively isolate Iranian users from the World Wide Web and shield government servers and websites from cyberattacks.

Minister of Communication Reza Taghipour said Monday that his ministry had accelerated its efforts to complete the project and free Iran from the West.

How did Iran manage to capture a US robotic surveillance plane, which looks remarkably undamaged in an Iranian video? The US initially claimed the drone went astray over Afghanistan and blamed a malfunction, but Iran said it had brought the craft down 200 kilometres inside its border earlier this month.

Now the Christian Science Monitor reports that Iran jammed GPS signals and fooled the drone into landing at an Iranian base. "The GPS navigation is the weakest point," an unnamed Iranian engineer analysing the captured drone told a Monitor correspondent inside Iran. "By putting noise [jamming] on the communications, you force the bird into autopilot. This is where the bird loses its brain."

Once the drone lost its bearings, the engineer said, Iranians were able to reprogram its internal mapping system to think that its home base was an Iranian site at almost the same altitude. He added that the slight mismatch in altitude caused a rough landing that damaged the robot plane's landing gear and underside.

GPS signals are broadcast by satellites, so they are weak near the ground. That makes them vulnerable to interference from stronger nearby signals. Even military versions of GPS are vulnerable to electronic warfare, which usually seeks to disable key systems to bring down a plane. The Iranians claim to have taken that one step further by electronically capturing control of the remotely controlled robot craft. A former Navy specialist told the Monitor that hostilely reprogramming a GPS to fly to a different home is "certainly possible".

Built by defense contractor Lockheed Martin, the RQ-170 Sentinel craft is a high-flying surveillance craft, which uses stealth technology to elude detection. Although details are classified, some information has leaked, including photos which match those shown by Iran.

At the time the US lost control, it was operated by the CIA. With no US controller operating it, the unmanned aircraft should have crashed - yet the one Iran displayed showed only a dent, although its landing gear was hidden.

If that's what happened to the CIA's Sentinel, it's going to prompt some serious rethinking of how to wage robotic warfare. You don't want the enemy to be able to capture and reprogram your robots so they fight you.

tagsCIAdroneGPShackIran Post a commentSign in to comment, or comment anonymously.

Name Email Address URL Remember me?

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)

29 CommentsAll comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.inventor on December 16, 2011 5:25 PM I've been warning people about that a long time. The US department of defense is crazy to use open source windows software to control military drones. Were they on drugs?

dominic vautier on December 16, 2011 7:39 PM Drones like this can fly all by themselves and have redundant means of navigation. If something unexpected happens such as an attempt to take over control the drown goes dark and flies back home. It does not depend on gps or even the special military gps. It can use topography to get home and that is the main way it works since it can’t be fooled.

I find it incredible that the Iranians got this bird. The number one defensive goal of our military was to protect our investment so we use the best technique which is topography, not gps. We are so good at designing these things. How did they get it? That is the big question. It was not by jamming gps or breaking the tether or fooling the bird. It was some other way.

farhang on December 16, 2011 7:49 PM The U.S should not send its drone some 250 kilometers inside Iran. What if Iran had done such a thing, it would have been called a "provocation". Since America's military satellites scan all over Iran then why the drone should be here?

Jason on December 16, 2011 7:56 PM The most amazing thing for me is that it didn't have self-destruct.

Enola on December 16, 2011 10:31 PM Dominic suggested that the drone can't be fooled. I have some suggestions:

. Maybe it is just a fibre glass model to spread false news.. Maybe the US is letting them spread that false news to up the ante so that Iran can be perceived as increasingly belligerent ahead of a war.

. Maybe the US wanted that drone to be caught for the reason above.. Maybe they let them have it to underestimate their technology.. Maybe it is secretly transmitting back to the US the Iranian's reverse engineering technology and the people doing it.

. If it is genuine, why did Iran let them know they caught one. Newer ones will now be upgraded.

Finally,. Maybe it was not caught but snared in the air and brought down.

pres on December 16, 2011 10:46 PM Whatever, if the US did not want them to have it then it was, at least, some payback for the US/Israeli STUXNET debacle.

sniper310 on December 17, 2011 5:02 AM Stupid.. at least they should have have an auto fry for the electronics. Some brainless pilot must have went out for a cup of coffee. Was probably brought down by a high altitude jamming/intercept source.

GKZH on December 17, 2011 7:11 AM But how iranian knew that there is a flying object to start interfere in it's brain?

Mark on December 17, 2011 8:51 AM New land based GPS technology such as GPS 2.0 created by an Australian private company Locata would have prevented this hijacking of the satellite GPS signal.

Radio reception a terrestrial GPS beacon has 1 billion times the signal strength of a satellite GPS beacon - in normal civilian applications - making jaming harder to do..

morteza on December 17, 2011 11:49 AM We, as iranians, are not your enemies as you mentioned in the last sentence. that was random and rude. Surveillance or spy bird, whatever you call it, was caught over another country, this does not make that country an enemy, and give you permission to start a new war.

Peter jackson on December 17, 2011 3:33 PM Wow it is Possible ....!...........if it is possible, that is an incredible but extremly dangerous.....beware of this things.

d on December 17, 2011 3:41 PM The build quality of the plane looks rather low

jemand on December 17, 2011 4:56 PM If this bird is real and represents state of the art stealth aero-tech, then what will China do for Iran to get it's hands on it? Then again, it might be a decoy to test Chinese intelligence contacts with Iran. The possibilities are almost endless.

David Oldfield on December 17, 2011 6:43 PM Anything that can be programmed, can be re-programmed.That incudes planes and people.

GreenBoy on December 17, 2011 10:03 PM I'm Iranian. I am completely against Iran's government. but I want to add some comments:1- Was it fair to send a surveillance aircraft to Iran? Is it for or against human rights?2- How did Iran know the presence of the RQ-170 on its air? It may be just an invention made by Iran government.3- I know this government. They are master of doing such these.

Ham on December 18, 2011 5:05 AM I wonder what pilots have to say about this? How would this have been handled if it had be a real person in the cockpit? One also wonders that if GPS can be hijacked by enemies, then can those enemies eventually turn around a fleet of drones and have them attack the sender countries? Or fly into targets?Hamilton

Gigawatt on December 18, 2011 11:07 AM SkyNet

Sean on December 18, 2011 10:52 PM I agree with morteza and GreenBoy. Iran is not an enemy. It's only paranoid America that thinks it is and so they send those drones over Iran to spy on them. If it was the other way round then America would blast Iran all over the media and Iran would be a radioactive wasteland within minutes. I am sick of all this talk about how Iran is building a nuclear arsenal, so what if they are? What possible threat could they pose to America with it's thousands of missiles? Stop building this tension to fever pitch and just leave them alone!

Anon on December 19, 2011 2:11 AM A former Navy specialist told the Monitor that hostilely reprogramming a GPS to fly to a different home is "certainly possible".

BEIRUT—Iranian rapper Shahin Najafi expected his song calling on a Shiite saint to save Iran from its current rulers to stir up controversy, but he never imagined it might cost him his life.

He is now being dubbed the Salman Rushdie of music after two influential clerics in Iran issued fatwas—religious edicts—justifying his murder on grounds of blasphemy.

"I am still in disbelief. I'm only 31, with my whole life ahead of me," said Mr. Najafi in an interview from Germany, where he lives and, since last week, has been in hiding under the protection of German police.

Mr. Najafi says he doesn't regret the song and refuses to apologize, arguing that invoking a saint's name is a freedom of expression and not a religious insult. "Each person has to pay a price for what they want. I will never apologize for my art and for speaking the truth about Iran's government," said Mr. Najafi.

Iranian officials haven't commented on the fatwas or denounced them. But the case could present a new public-image problem for Iran ahead of talks next week with the international community in Baghdad over its nuclear program.

In recent months, Iran has sought to improve its image as a rogue nation by offering conciliatory remarks to build trust with the West. The efforts paid off to some extent at an initial meeting in March in Istanbul, where both sides claimed the negotiations ended on a positive note, paving the way for a second round set to begin on May 23 in Baghdad. Iran says the world should trust its word that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

The senior clerics empowered to issue fatwas act independently of the government—but anyone who carries out a death fatwa is granted impunity under Iranian law.

"Iranian authorities could make it very clear that people who are inciting murder could be held accountable, and that's something they aren't currently doing," said Ann Harrison, Amnesty International's deputy program director for Middle East and Africa.

After Mr. Najafi released his song "Naqi" online on May 7, Iranian media and conservative bloggers said it was in violation of an earlier fatwa calling for the execution of anyone who blasphemes the 10th saint of Shiite Islam, Ali an-Naqi. A subsequent fatwa by another grand ayatollah declared that a singer who had been insulting the saint was guilty of blasphemy—giving the green light for his followers to kill Mr. Najafi, though the fatwa didn't mention the rapper by name. Both rulings have been repeated in Iranian media.

An Iranian website, Shia-Online, subsequently put a $100,000 bounty on Mr. Najafi's head, and more than 100 people, joining an online "campaign to execute Shahin Najafi," have pledged further rewards.

Mr. Najafi, a native of a small port town in southern Iran, fled to Germany in 2005 after he said an intelligence agent threatened him for staging underground concerts. His angry lyrics touch on rights abuses, stifling social norms and other difficulties of life in Iran, and in "Naqi," he calls on the saint to save the country. He says he is too young to go into hiding, but fears he might never be safe in Europe.

After the fatwa issued by the Iranian revolution's founding father Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini against Mr. Rushdie in 1989, the British-Indian writer went into hiding for years, and Iran suffered diplomatic fallout with Europe. While Mr. Najafi isn't nearly as renowned as Mr. Rushdie and the clerics who issued the fatwa aren't as powerful as Iran's supreme leader, the threat to his life is serious, human-rights organizations say.

—David Crawford contributed to this article.

A version of this article appeared May 16, 2012, on page A10 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Rapper Fears for His Life After Fatwa.

Iran may be months away from putting a bomb together. In this author' opinion that would give Israel enough time to attack. The biggest rear is a breakout wherein Iran could put the a bomb together in a few weeks. It sounds like he believes they may have the knowhow and the essential building blocks in place to do this - just the will/word from the "surpeme" leader.

One scenerio is Iran claims a nucler accident at one of its sites and keeps away the inspectors. They then move to another site the wherewithall to go ahead and put devices together and within a few weeks they could conduct a test:

Iran increased its uranium by 0.825 ton since February. Now estimated total of 6.2 tons enough for five bombs.In my previous post the estimate was enough for four bombs. At this pace the risks from what I can gather is what in the previous Scientific American author calls is a "breakout" wherein they can enrich rapidly to weapons grade uranium unbeknown to the West.

Otherwise they sound like they are still months to a few years away. Yet they keep accelerating the process and keep hardening their defenses against attack. Clearly Israel (with US) would have been far better off destroying their capabilities a long time ago.

Iran read America's timidness correctly. From everything I can read about it in the media - Israel has absolutely no choice. Netanyaho clearly knows this and appears to be attempting to force Brockman's hand. Some reported in the media is he is planning a pre-election strike so Brockman will have to act - if he wants the Jewish money (and maybe the support from that portion of the media controlled or influenced by Jews) to get elected.

Taking the thought process from my previous two posts a little farther, if I was an Iranian leader, hell bent, on wiping all Jews from Israel when would I attempt a "breakout"? Would I want to be able to rapidly produce 5, 10, 15 nuclear devices? I would think it would also be necessary to have the ability to put them on missles that could reach Israel, the Persian Gulf (US Navy).

Amadenablowjob has already pointed out what we know 3 nuclear explosions in Israel will effectively wipe out the main centers of the country.

Just my armchair guess would be that once they get to around "10 weapons" grade material and can put on the tip of a missle they will try a breakout - announce and or threaten in some way to the world not to screw with them and then what - I don't know.

Or will they just attempt detonate the devices in Tel Aviv without any warning, etc?

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Sunday indirectly confirmed recent remarks by the Ambassador to Israel that the U.S. is “ready from a military perspective’’ to stop Iran from making a nuclear weapon if international pressure fails.

The U.S. and members of the United Nations Security Council recently met in Baghdad for talks about Iran’s suspected nuclear weapon program. Iran denies it has military intentions but has called for the destruction of Israel.

“We have plans to be able to implement any contingency we have to in order to defend ourselves,’’ Panetta said on ABC’s This Week. Earlier, Panetta said, “The fundamental premise is that neither the United States or the international community is going to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.’’

Panetta defended the U.S. military’s use of drones to kill terrorists, resulting in some civilian casualties, calling them “one of the most precise weapons that we have in our arsenal.’’

He also insisted that the administration did not share any “inappropriate’’ details with filmmakers making a movie about Osama bin Laden, despite criticism from members of Congress.

Iran since 1953 has been an American problem. The article points out that sanctions will not work and that war with Iran is inevitable.by Kevin C. Caffrey(conservative)Wednesday, May 30, 2012

The ‘October Surprise’ is this writer’s personal hypothesis about American and Iranian foreign policy between "US" and "Them". The argument goes that in September, 2012 if the Presidential Election is too close to call then Obama may go to war with Iran in order to insure his re-election. President Obama has a psychological pretense towards grandiosity and in his own words “a fellow citizen of the World.” President Obama is an Internationalist before an American. This conclusion is drawn from his actions in light of international policies. Obama has put international concerns before the American people who continually have ended up under the bus throughout his administration (read: next article). Obama suffers from Malignant Narcissism. In a September, 2008 article the American Thinker, quoted roughly five journalists who had remarked about Senator Obama’s grandiosity at the time. Later in the article Sam Vaknin PhD., wrote: “Barak Obama appears to be a narcissist.” The previous psychological argument is the weakest of the premises for the ‘October Surprise.’ One of the strongest premises revolves around “The Preemptive Strike Doctrine” it allows hair trigger Cart Blanche to Presidents since 9/11 to attack foreign nation-states. The fact is it appears Congress cannot stop a President today from attacking a foreign country. Congressional approval is needed by the Constitution in order to take America to war. President Obama committed the United States military in [his] "Humanitarian" war with Libya. Attacking foreign nations is nothing new for President Obama.

First it is a good idea to study a little bit about the dynamics of the Middle East; American foreign policy in the region, and specifically, America’s relationship with Iran.The CIA overthrow of the government of Iran in 1953, and the CIA’s insertion of a Monarchy was fantastic for the United States. The Monarchy was America’s staunchest ally in the Middle East until 1979. The Iranian Revolution (1979) removed the Monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Iran became a Theocratic-democracy under the ‘Supreme Ruler” Ayatollah Rohullah Khomeini. Iran this writer argues is the crux of America’s Middle Eastern Foreign Policy problem (Some would argue it is are ally Israel). Iran has always strived to control all the nation-states in the Middle East region. The U.S. Iran Relations are very complicated unless these relations are looked at from a Neo-realist international perspective, either from an Offensive or Defensive Structural Realist International Theory. The fact is America has always resisted the idea of a regional hegemon in the Middle East, which is one Nation-state who is the powerhouse of the entire region both economically and militarily. The entire run down of interaction within the Middle East demonstrates that American foreign policy is one that will stop any attempt by a Nation-state to become a Regional Hegemonic power in the Middle East. If a person looks at the Khatmai Era (1997 – July, 2005) or what is called the Iran-Contra Affair to Iraqgate: and the Admadinejad Era from (August 2005 to Present) what is found is an American policy to suffocate the regime in Iran with sanctions (CRS reports 75 different), Executive Orders (at least 5), Iran has mostly been at odds with the United States since 1979. However, America in the past has turned to Iran and actually treated Iran as an ally. For example, the United States armed Iran when it was losing the war with Iraq and vice-versa; if Iran was winning then the United States armed Iraq. This strategy is an Offensive realist strategy called “bait and bleeding” that allows for no clear winner in the war and hence, no hegemon. America’s Middle East policy was and remains a foreign policy that keeps each nation-state in conflict with the other nation-states in the region. The American foreign policy concerning the Middle East changed after the terrorist attack on September 11 that took down the World Trade Center in New York.

The Iraq War was a nightmare and the repercussions are beginning to display themselves today. The domestic internal problems of: Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, the Israelis and Palestinians, not to mention Israel screaming about bombing Iran over its nuclear program; all of this, in one way or another, has a lot to do with America disturbing the “Balance of Power” in the Middle East region. Nation building (International theory about making democracies i.e. Iraq) and one that President Obama adheres too) is a concept that will never work. This is due to the cultural and religious differences of the various people living in different areas around the world. Multiculturalism is a secular idealist construct that is beyond human understanding and unworkable in the real world. The International bodies are all a farce. People must be impressed with how well the Syrian dictator listens to the United Nations. President Obama believes in Multiculturalism, Nationbuilding, International law and treaties that tie America too International Institutions with no regard for the American Constitution. President Obama believes in multi-international policing for humanitarian reasons. For example, Libya the “War Powers Resolution” was trampled on, but so many Presidents have since 1973 it just seems that Executive Privilege outweighs the laws of Congress. If a President can wage war and get in and out quick enough it’s alright. The President can be in the middle of a fully fledged war before he needs money and must go to Congress to vote on a Declaration of War. President Obama the Nobel Peace prize winner and antiwar President was also the person who ordered: U.S. Forces Lead Attack Against Libya in Operation 'Odyssey Dawn' hundreds of missile strikes from ships and sub-marines in the area along with airstrikes were ordered by President Obama. America in ten years may know the number of dead, because of Obama’s "Humanitarian Operation." President Obama made a few comments on his little war in Libya: "Make no mistake: today we are part of a broad coalition," he said, a contrast to the Iraq invasion that was opposed by many allies and by Mr. Obama himself. "We are acting in the interest of the United States and the world." And President Obama did say after the fact that he would keep the American people informed. It is all about President Obama. Remember the commercial were the American people are told about how President Obama killed Osama bin Laden this is part of the Presidents personality and "Malignant Narcissism" disorder.

Many Democrats probably thought that President Obama was going to do away with President Bush’s “Preemptive Strike Doctrine.” However, Matt Welch in an article entitled the “Obama’s Preemptive Strike Doctrine” writes that, “The "anti-war candidate" puts some multilateral lipstick on George W. Bush's war pig.” And that is what Obama’s Defense Department did at the Quadrennial Defense Review in 2010, its interesting reading. Most American's have heard the same old stories for ten years now. Iran is once again stalling and playing the world leaders for fools and buying time for their nuclear program. From Bagdad, to Moscow, to Disneyland it will all end up the same, the Iranians will not budge, the Israel’s will get anxious, and October will be here in no time. The last comments that the reader should be left with are those that will make Obama believe that his International Throne will stay in place by Obama's Presidential election win in his decision to bomb Iran? Paul Joseph Watson quotes Obama: Barack Obama has told America’s allies that the United States will attack Iran before fall 2012 unless Tehran halts its nuclear program, a time frame that suggests Obama is willing to use war as a re-election campaign tool to rally the population around his leadership. President Obama is setting the stage in his remarks: “Addressing the powerful pro-Israel lobby, Obama delivered messages to multiple political audiences: Israel, Iran, Jewish voters, a restless Congress, a wary international community… At the core was his bullish assertion that the United States will never settle for containing a nuclear-armed Iran or fail to defend Israel.” In order to put the icing on the cake for the "October Surprise" is in an article by Pat Buchanan: “And Obama surely knows that an October confrontation with Iran, with war a possibility, or a reality, will mean the nation rallies around him and he wins a second term.” The only thing those of us who follow politics can do is watch and wait.

OK with me if he is doing this AND making it public to shore up Jewish support (won't help one ioda with me though).

I guess the question is Netanyahu going to wait till after the election or do before November. An American led "Ocotober surprise" will be solely on the basis of Brock's re election outlook at that time:

Why is it significant that the vice president of Iran has used a United Nations forum to deliver an appalling anti-Semitic speech?

This happened yesterday in Geneva . . . Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi blamed "Zionists" for the world's drug trade, citing the Talmud and leaving his audience at the anti-drug conference in shock.

This event is significant because it reminds us that the assumptions behind the nuclear negotiations with Iran are questionable at best. Those assumptions include mirror-imaging, the belief that Iran's regime will make the sorts of "rational" calculations the governments of the EU and United States would make in their place. Impose sanctions on Iran, reduce its income from oil sales, harm its economy, and surely the Supreme Leader and his advisers will react as we would, weighing almost mathematically the costs and benefits of the nuclear program.

Then comes Mr. Rahimi, teaching us that math may not be the best way to predict Iranian policy decisions. How do we factor in irrational hatred of Jews? How do we weigh a deep desire to destroy the Jewish state? How do we calculate the effect of beliefs that seem to us in the West to be preposterous, ludicrous, impossible? Or a better question: how do Israelis make those judgments?

As many historians—most recently, Andrew Roberts in The Storm of War, his superb history of the Second World War—have reminded us, lucid calculations are often absent, statesmanship often pushed aside by ideological obsessions, hatred more powerful than rational calculations. Just because we think it irrational for Iranian officials to make such speeches, or wreck their economy to pursue nuclear weapons, or threaten Israel, does not mean that such things are not happening and will not happen.

Sitting around conference tables they may appear unlikely or impossible, but the Rahimi speech may be a better guide to Iranian foreign policy than the words spoken at those sessions.

"Today many former Israeli intelligence officers are warning America not to listen the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and to avoid a military clash with Iran. Yuval Diskin, the retired head of the Shabak, the Israeli internal security service, has said Bibi is guided by “messianic feelings” which impair his judgement. Meir Dagan, his counterpart at the Mossad, the external security service, has said a military attack on Iran would be “stupid.” This time the warnings from our professional Israeli allies are not quiet."